博碩士論文 etd-0903107-200352 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 蔡伊婷(I-ting Tsai) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 外國語文學系研究所(Foreign Language and Literature)
畢業學位 碩士(Master) 畢業時期 95學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 「道歉」語言行為研究:言談情境填充問卷及言談情境角色扮演之比較
論文名稱(英) Studying Apologies: A Comparison of DCT and Role-play Data
檔案
  • etd-0903107-200352.pdf
  • 本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
    請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
    論文使用權限

    電子論文:校內立即公開,校外一年後公開

    論文語文/頁數 英文/209
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5353 次,被下載 3171 次
    摘要(中) 在中介語語用學 (Interlanguage Pragmatics) 領域裡,過去文獻已廣泛討論由不同語料收集工具所收集的語料之效度。本研究透過語言行為 (speech act) 領域中二種最普遍的研究方法,亦即,言談情境填充問卷 (Discourse Completion Task) 及言談情境角色扮演 (role play),收集道歉語言行為之語料並比較道歉策略 (apology strategies) 及內在修飾語 (internal modification) 之使用。六十名以中文為母語的台灣大學生及六十名學習英語為第二語言之台灣大學生填寫言談情境填充問卷;二十四名以中文為母語的台灣大學生及四十名學習英語為第二語言之台灣大學生參與言談情境角色扮演。研究結果顯示,無論是在言談情境填充問卷亦或在言談情境角色扮演裡,受試者者們傾向使用直接道歉策略 (Direct Expression of Apology)、承認錯誤 (Acknowledge Responsibility) 及提出補償措施 (Offer of Repairs) 做為他們主要的道歉策略。此外,受試者在此二種研究方法中,也都傾向使用增強道歉程度的修飾語 (MAXIMIZERs) 多於降低冒犯程度的修飾語(MINIMIZERs) 。然而,進一步分析道歉策略及內在修飾語之使用頻率及分佈,結果發現二種研究方法之間存在些許不同之處。相較於言談情境填充問卷,受試者在言談情境角色扮演中使用較多道歉策略及較多的內在修飾語。此外,受試者在填寫言談情境填充問卷時,也使用較少類別的道歉策略及較少類別的內在修飾。另外,由於英語能力較低落,以及對於面對面的互動較沒把握 (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989),學習英語為第二外語的非外文系學生,使用較多的「無爭議性策略」(‘play-it-safe’ strategy) (Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg, 1987)。換句話說,學習英語為第二外語的非外文系學生使用較多的直接道歉,並在所有的道歉情境下使用增強道歉程度的特徵(MAXIMIZERs)多於降低冒犯程度的特徵(MINIMIZERs)。除此之外,若將以中文為母語的台灣大學生再劃分成二組不同的組別:英語系學生及非英語系學生,結果顯示出一些群體內的差異。例如,在言談情境角色扮演的語料上顯示,英語系學生及非英語系學生之道歉策略的喜好順序不同。另外,英語系學生也比非英語系學生使用較多的中文語氣詞,「啊」、「吧」、及「呢」。研究結果意味,將台灣大學生依照其教育背景,另外分成不同組別是必要的。本研究也另外指出,傳統上,根據英語系統所分類的內在修飾模式可能無法完整解釋中文的道歉語言行為。中文的語氣助詞在英文中沒有可相對應之詞 (Tang and Tang, 1997),然而回顧以往道歉語言行為之研究,內在修式模式的分類卻都將中文語氣詞忽略了。因此,本研究藉由將中文語氣詞「啊」、「吧」、及「呢」列入內在修式語的分類中,修改了傳統上對於道歉語言中的內在修式語的分類 (Blum-Kulka & Kasper, 1989; Lin and Ho, 2006; Trosborg, 1995)。結果指出,雖然先前關於道歉語言內在修飾模式的研究 (Lin and Ho, 2006) 顯示英語母語人士較中文母語人士使用較多的內在修飾語,然而,若將中文語氣詞列入內在修飾語的分類之中,結果卻顯示中文母語人士較英文母語人士更常修飾其言語的語氣。此結果暗指中文語氣詞對於中文母語人士在表達說話時的態度的重要性。最後,為了提高語料的效度,未來相關研究應收集真實語境之語料並分析言談情境填充問卷及言談情境角色扮演是否皆能代表真實言語。此外,為了針對跨文化及中介語做更進一步分析,未來研究也應收集中文母語人士、英語母語人士、學習英文為第二外語的學生之語料。
    摘要(英) The validity of the speech act data obtained from different types of elicitation instruments has been widely debated in the Interlanguage Pragmatics literature. This study compared the use of apology strategies and modality markers from apology speech act data collected from two most popular speech act elicitation tasks, namely, Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and role plays. Sixty native speakers of Chinese (NS-C) and sixty EFL learners responded to DCT. Twenty four NS-C and forty EFL learners participated in role plays. Results show that subjects tended to use Direct Expression of Apology, Acknowledge Responsibility and Offer of Repairs as their main strategies in apology situations both on DCT and in role plays. In addition, participants tended to exploit MAXIMIZERs more than MINIMIZERs in both methods. However, differences between two approaches were revealed when frequencies and distributions of apology strategies and modality markers were examined. Role plays elicited overall more apology strategies and modality markers than DCT did. Participants were also found to employ a narrower range of strategies and modality markers on DCT. Because of the feeling of insecurity in face-to-face encounters (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989), EFL-L exhibited more ‘play-it-safe’ strategies (Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg, 1987) by giving more direct apologies, and exploiting more MAXIMIZERs than MINIMIZERs across four situations. When dividing NS-C into two separate groups: English majors (NS-C-EM) and non-English (NS-C-NEM), some in-group differences were revealed. For instance, in role-play data, the preference order for apology strategy choice was different between NS-C-EM and NS-C-NEM. Also, NS-C-EM tended to exploit overall more Chinese particles, a, ba, and ne, than their NS-C-NEM counterparts. The finding suggests that it is necessary to divide NS-C into different groups based on their educational background such as English majors and non-English majors. The present study also pointed out that traditional categorization of apology internal modification which was based on the language system of English may fail to fully capture Chinese apology behaviors. Chinese modal particles which have no English equivalent (Tang and Tang, 1997) have been ignored in the categorization of apology internal modifications in the literature. Thus, a modified coding system which included Chinese particles, namely, “A” (啊), “BA” (吧), and “NE” (呢), was proposed based on traditional categorization of apology internal modification developed in the previous studies (Blum-Kulka & Kasper, 1989; Lin and Ho, 2006; Trosborg, 1995). The result indicates that while the previous study (Lin and Ho, 2006) on apology internal modification which excluded Chinese particles has revealed that NS-C exploited less modality markers than their native speakers of English (NS-E) counterparts, the result in the present showed an opposite pattern in that by tagging Chinese particles at the end of the utterances, NS-C were found to modulate their tone more often than NS-E. This might imply the importance of the Chinese particles for NS-C in conveying attitude. Finally, in order to increase the validity of data elicitation methods, further studies addressed to the methodological issue should include the analysis of the responses obtained from naturally occurring data and examine whether both data obtained from DCT and role plays are representative of ‘natural speech’ . Also, in order to have cross-cultural and cross-linguistic comparison, speech acts data produced by NS-E, NS-C, and EFL learners collected through DCT, role plays, and naturally occurring data are needed for future researches.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 道歉
  • 言談情境填充問卷
  • 語言行為
  • 言談情境角色扮演
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • internal modification
  • role play
  • DCT
  • apology strategy
  • apology
  • speech act
  • 論文目次 ABSTRACT  IV
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI
    LIST OF TABLES X
    LIST OF FIGURES XII
    CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
    1.1 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN INTERLANGAGE STUDIES 1
    1.2 APOLOGY SPEECH ACT STUDY AND MOTIVATION 3
    1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 7
    CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
    2.1 DATA COLLECTION IN SPEECH ACTS AND INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS STUDIES 8
    2.1.1 Methods Eliciting Perception Data 9
    2.1.1.1 Multiple Choice Questionnaire 10
    2.1.1.2 Rating Scales 11
    2.1.1.3 Stimulated Recall 12
    2.1.2 Methods Eliciting Production Data 13
    2.1.2.1 Authentic Discourse 13
    2.1.2.2 Discourse Completion Tasks 14
    2.1.2.3 Role play 17
    2.2 THE USE OF MULTIPLE APPROACHES IN SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION 20
    2.3 COMPARING DIFFERENT MEASURES IN SPEECH ACT BEHAVIORS 21
    2.4 THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY 28
    2.4.1 Definition 28
    2.4.2 Apology Strategies 30
    2.4.3 Previous Studies on the Speech Act of Apology 39
    2.4.3.1 L1 Studies 40
    2.4.3.2 Cross-cultural and Interlanguage Studies 41
    CHAPTER 3 METHOD 45
    3.1 INFORMANTS 45
    3.2 INSTRUMENT 47
    3.3 PROCEDURES 51
    3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND TRANSCRIPTION 52
    3.5 CODING SYSTEM 53
    3.5.1 APOLOGY STRATEGIES 53
    3.5.2 INTERNAL MODIFICATIONS 66
    3.5.2.1 MAXIMINZERs vs. MINIMIZERs 66
    3.5.2.2 Chinese Particles: A, BA, and, NE 70
    CHPATER 4 RESUTLS AND DISCUSSION 77
    4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF APOLOGY STRATEGIES 77
    4.1.1 Overall Pattern of Apology Strategies Used on DCTs and in Role plays 77
    4.1.2 Apology Strategy Preference Order on the DCT and in role plays 80
    4.1.3 Apology Strategies Used Among the Four Groups 90
    4.1.4 TASK INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY STRATEGIES 95
    4.1.4.1 Response Differences between DCT and Role Plays for NS-C-EM 95
    4.1.4.2  Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for NS-C-N 104
    4.1.4.3 Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for EFL-H 113
    4.1.4.4 Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for EFL-L 118
    4.2 Effect of L2 Proficiency: Pragmalinguistic Transfer 126
    4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF MODALITY MARKERS ON DCT AND ROLE PLAY 132
    4.3.1 Overall Use of Modality Markers 132
    4.3.2 MAXIMIZERs vs. MINIMIZERs 137
    4.3.3 MINIMIZING Upgraders vs. Downgraders 140
    4.3.4 Chinese Particles: A, BA, and NE 144
    4.3.5 Preference of Modality Markers 148
    4.3.6 MAXIMIZERs vs. MINIMIZERs Across Four Situations 155
    4.3.7 Problems Resulted from Traditional Apology Internal Modifications 158
    CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 161
    5.1 SUMMARY 161
    5.2 IMPLICATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCHES 164
    APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE: CHINESE VERSION FOR NS-C 178
    APPENDIX B: Questionnaire: English Version for EFL 186
    APPENDIX C: ROLE PLAY SITUATIONS: CHINESE VERSION FOR NS-C 194
    APPENDIX D: ROLE PLAY SITUATIONS: ENGLISH VERSION FOR EFL 195
    APPENDIX E: ROLE PLAY TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS 196
    參考文獻 Alleton, V. (1981). Final particles and expression of  modality in modern Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 9, 91-115.
    Aston, G. (1995). Say “Thank you”: Some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics 16 (1), 57-87
    Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words (edited by J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisà). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Bataineh, R. F. & Batainh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying "no" in English: Native and nonnative rejections. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Volume 2 (pp.41-57). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K, & Hartford, B. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (Eds.): Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, Vol. 4 (pp. 143-165). Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Beebe, L.M. & Cummings, M.C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, New York.
    Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. (1996). Natural speech data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech behavior. In S. Gass & J. Neu. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 65-83). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech. acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation (pp. 199-218). NY: Plenum..
    Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, J. (1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Keashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury.
    Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 82-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Benander, R. (1990). Cultural expression in speech behavior, Methods of inquiry. Penn Working Papers in Education al Linguistics, 6(2), 21-19.
    Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
    Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984a). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
    Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984b). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
    Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-180.
    Bodman, J., & Eisenstein, M. (1988). May God increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and nonnative speakers. Cross Currents, 15(1), 1-21.
    Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17, 183-196.
    Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Carrell, P. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In Selected papers from the ninth Illinois TESOL/BE annual convention, the first Midwest TESOL conference, R.Orem and J. Haskell (Eds.), 123-132. Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE
    Chaudron, C. (2005). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long, (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 762-827). Blackwell Publishing.
    Chang, A. (1994). The particle ‘NE’ : Function and significance. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers’ Assocation, 29(1), 89-92.
    Chu, C. C. (1984). Beef it up with NE. Journal of Chinese Languaeg Teachers’ Association, 19 (3), 87-92.
    Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing: the use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 133-159.
    Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),
    Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 51-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
    Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the production of second-language speech acts. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, and A. D. Cohen (eds.), Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 143-156.
    Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62, 51-74.
    Cordella, M. (1990). Apologizing in Chilean Spanish and Australian English: a cross-cultural perspective. ARAL Series, 5, 66-92.
    DeCapua, A. (1998). The transfer of native language speech behavior into a second language: A basis for cultural stereotypes? Applied Linguistics, 9, 21 35.
    Du, J. S. (1995). Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language (pp. 165-206). Manoa, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.
    Edstrom, A. (2004). Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation: Reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1499-518
    Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by native and nonnative speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-185.
    Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
    Ellis, R. (2004). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
    University Press.
    Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.221-247). NJ: Ablex.
    Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.
    Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2003) Declining an invitation: A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English. Multilingua, 22(3): 225-255.
    García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education, 1, 299-322.
    Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90-120.
    Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992;;
    Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Tokyo: Temple University Japan. Ph.D. diss.
    Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18, 1-26.
    Ho, P. C. (2006). Internal modification of apology realization: Cross-cultural variations. Unpublished master thesis, Sun Yat-sen University Press.
    House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.
    House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language in Performance (pp.250-288). Tuebingen: Narr.
    Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10, 194-213.
    Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19 (2), 155-99
    Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand Women Are Good to Talk To: An Analysis of Politeness Strategies in Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2): 91-116.
    Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness, New York: Longman.
    Holmes, J. (1988). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics 28: 485-507.
    Holmes, J. & Brown, D.F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523-546.
    Hou, Y. C. (2006). A cross-cultural study of the perception of apology – Effect of a contextual factors, exposure to the target language, interlocutor ethnicity and task language. Unpublished master thesis, Sun Yat-sen University Press.
    Houck, N. & Gass, S. M. (1996). Non-native refusal: A methodological perspective. In S.M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 45-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.;
    Hudson , T., Detmer, E., and Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics, Technical Report (2). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’I at Manoa.
    Hudson , T., Detmer, E., and Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Technical Report (7). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’I at Manoa.
    Hymes, D. (1972). on Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, p.269-93. Harmondswortth: PenguinJohnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). The effect of rejoinders in production
    questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19, 157-182.
    Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatic research. In S. O. Helen (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (pp. 316-341). London & New York: Continuum.
    Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215-248.
    Kotani, M. (2002). English Conversation, Research on Language and social interaction, 35(1), 37-72.
    Kwon, J. (2004). Expressiong refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23, 339-364.
    Lee-Wong, S. M. (1998). Face support – Chinese particles as mitigators: a study of BA, A/Y and NE. Pragmatics, 8(3), 387-404.
    Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
    Li, B. Y. (2006). Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Netherlands: LOT.
    Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkely: University of California Press.
    Liao, C. C. and Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal Strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3-4): 703-727.
    Lin, H. T. (1981). Essential Grammar for Modern Chinese. Boston: Cheng & Tsui.
    Lin, Y. H. & Ho, P. C. (2006). Internal modification in apology realization:
    Cross-cultural variations. Paper presented at the Conference of Pragmatics in the CJK Classroom. June 5-7, University of Hawaii-Manoa.
    Lin, Y. H. & Yu, H. M. (2006). Expressing gratitude in Mandarin Chinese—The effect of Speaker and Interlocutor Gender. Paper to be presented at the 2006 International Conference on Arts and Humanities. January, 11-14, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
    Mir, M. (1992). Do we all apologize the same? An empirical study on the act of apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 1-19.
    Morrow, C. K. (1995). The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners' production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, NY. UMI Microform, UMI Number: 9603629.
    Murphy, B. &. Neu, J. (1996). My grade's too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in second language (pp. 191-216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.
    Nakabachi, K. (1996). Pragmatic transfer in complaints: Strategies of complaining in English and Japanese by Japanese EFL speakers. JACET Bulletin, 27, 127-142.
    Obeng, S. G. (1999). Apologies in Akan discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 709-734
    Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology. In G. Susan & S. Larry (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. (pp. 232-249) Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. (pp. 155-173) Norwood, MA: Newbury House.
    Olshtain, E., & Blum Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1987). The Learning of Complex Speech Act Behavior. Paper presented at the colloquium on TESOL and sociolinguistics, Eighth Annual TESOL Convention, Miami, Florida.
    Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 195-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech acts of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp.108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Piotrowska, M. (1987). An investigation into the sociolinguistic competence of Hong Kong University students with specific reference to “making complaint.” Unpublished manuscript. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Language Centre.
    Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
    Rintell, E. M. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (27), 11-34.
    Rintell, E. (1984). But how did you feel about that? The learner’s perception of emotion in speech. Applied Linguistics, 5, 255-64.
    Rintell, E. & Mitchell, C (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (Eds.) 1989: Cross-culture pragmatics: requests and apologies (pp.248-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Robinson, M. (1991). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 29-84). (Technical Report; Vol 3). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
    Rose, K. R. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 49-62.
    Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15, 1-14.
    Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45(2), 191-223
    Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
    Schauer, G. A. & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34, 119-134.
    Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell Publishing
    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Shih, H. Y. (2006). An interlanguaeg study of the speech act of apology made by EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, Sun Yat-sen University Press.
    Suszczyńska, M. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1053-1065.
    Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.
    Takahashi, S., & Dufon, M. (1989). Cross-linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
    Tang, T. C. (湯廷池) & Tang, Z. Z. (湯志真) (1997). <華語情態詞序論>,《第五屆世界華語文教學論文集: 語文分析組》,頁175-197,台北: 世界華文出版社。
    Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives / nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-167.
    Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Vollmer, H. J. & Olshtain, E. (1989). The language of apologies in German. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
    Wolfson, N. (1981). Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, (24), 7-22.
    Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House.
    Wolfson, N, T. Marmor & S. Jones (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.) 1989: Cross-culture pragmatics: requests and apologies (pp.248-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Wu, R. R. (2003). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. John Benjamins Publishing.
    Yamashita, S. (1996). Six measures of JSL Pragmatics. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    Yu, M. C. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9, 281-312.
    Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271-292.
    口試委員
  • 徐淑瑛 - 召集委員
  • 梁彩玲 - 委員
  • 林玉惠 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2007-05-25 繳交日期 2007-09-03

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫